Tuesday, September 16, 2008

$85 billion here, $200 billion there ...

Soon, it starts to add up.

So, how does everyone feel being the proud owner of AIG? Personally, I don't feel any better about it than the $200 billion I (as a taxpayer) paid for Fannie and Freddie, but sadly, the gub-mint doesn't care much about how we feel.

Paul

11 comments:

Buying Time said...

Not too excited about it...I had hope after Lehman. Given that all of Wall Street seems willing to taketaxpayer $$, they better not complain (if) when the govn't requires more oversight and stricter standards.

On to things that effect everyday folks......oil is under a $100 a barrel, and interest rates are below 6% (well, assuming you can get a loan).

alba said...

The government owns half the homes in the US. They own the largest insurance company in the US. They will be making their own autos soon. They will also run most of the banks. That's not something for you to be concerned about?

Your oil and your loans will soon come from a government agency, assuming you are of the right idealog.

Buying Time said...

"They will be making their own autos soon."

Darn, I was really hoping they would take over heatlh care next.

Honestly, I don't like corporate welfare. But I am not as offended by government involement as most. That said, I would rather the government offer the safety net to people as opposed to corporations. I think the Europeans have a great quality of life (materity leave, lots of vacation, health care, good k-12 education etc.) and a competitive business sector.

Buying Time said...

"assuming you are of the right idealog"

And which idealog is that?

I think its all incredibly hypocritical that conservatives and Wall Street pushed for less government involvement and regulation, then turn around looking for a government handout.

alba said...

Whichever ideology that is currently in power.

They're not conservatives; they're capitalists. Whether regulation is too much or not enough, its always short-sided, easily manipulated, and favors one group. The pursuit of the appropriate regulation can never stop though; or we'll end up with your view of a pollyanna society (which doesn't exist).

Patient Renter said...

The 200 billion estimate for Fannie Freddie is just an estimate, and likely a pathetic one.

they better not complain (if) when the govn't requires more oversight and stricter standards

They're already complaining and very well may get their way, as history shows they usually do.

I think its all incredibly hypocritical that conservatives and Wall Street pushed for less government involvement and regulation, then turn around looking for a government handout.

It is hypocritical, but both parties are responsible here. Check the Senate voting records for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which repealed what was left of Glass-Steagall. It was passed almost unanimously. I think it's better to pay attention to who didn't vote for it (in the Senate and House) than who did.

Deflationary Jane said...

I'm with Average on all these points. Nationalied healthcare could have gone a long way towards helping to stabilize the job market in reduced costs to keep employees working. Sadly, we completely borked that opportunity.

Nothing is as far away as one minute ago except in this case it was 8 yrs ago.

alba said...

The Glass-Steagall act appeared to allow capitalists to develop a shadow banking system that became larger than the regulated banking system. It shows capitalism with no/little government control is very dangerous. It also seemed to be the enormous engine that needed fuel...from idle equity in homes. I look to Greenspan, as a government employee, as the architect for devising an economic stimulus by fueling the shadow banking system with home equity.

This mess is just beginning to unravel. Its no time to think everything good comes from a controlling body of individuals. Where has that ever worked?

I'm all for more controls on healthcare, returning it as a necessity in a healthy society, and minimizing it as a pure investment. Totally relying on government for such a basic necessity sets the expectations of humans to an unattainable level. Strip out the middle man, and give healthcare professionals a chance to make an honest, unencumbered living, by maintaining both their egotistical drive to succeed and their idealism to serve.

Patient Renter said...

I look to Greenspan, as a government employee

I wouldn't exactly call Greenspan a government employee being that the Fed is not the government, it is a consortium (some would say cartel) of banks.

alba said...

The 7 Governors are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Technically, you may be correct. Effectively, you're not. The rest are bank presidents, or bank representatives.

Patient Renter said...

Sure, the President appoints them from a list handed to him by the Fed, and then those people get to choose 1/3rd of the members of the board of directors of the Fed branches, the rest come directly from private banks themselves.

The fact that the Fed itself is owned by private member banks which profit from its activities places along with the fact that two thirds of the board of directors come from member banks, none of whom are subject to any public selection or approval process, places it quite apart from any other aspect of government.